truth for its own sake, regardless of its more unpleasant implications ...

October 2012

October 31, 2012

professor jon jay ray is always on my case about being too wordy. the below photo probably shows that he is right. this remarkable photo, at http://www.tothepointnews.com/content/view/5190/44/ , shows how much can be said with an amazing degree of brevity and economy.

wished i had thought of it. but, if i didn't have the native wit to, i am very glad someone else did.

john jay @ 10.31.2012

p.s. if typepad burps the photo up, just go to the above link. it'll work.

update: this didn't come out perfectly. go to the link. the panel on the right says, "the choice is clear: do you want a businessman who has generated billions or a president who has wasted trillions." (actually, he has "transferred" it from the "middle class" he & biden always champion to preserve and protect to the "down trodden and dispossessed" so beloved by leftists and progressives. and, skimmed a "bit" for the benefit of his chicago cabal. but, i quibble.)

THE CHOICE IS CLEAR

Written by To The Point News

Tuesday, 30 October 2012

This is a yard sign on the front yard of a home in Glenview, Illinois. TTP suggests that Mitt Romney fly there immediately and do a photo op with the home owner.

what does it mean for obama that he hasn't provided documentary proof of his narrative to this date?

it means that he cannot. this is important enough that it could cost him the election, and if he could foreclose such a loss by providing some sort of exculpatory or laudatory proof, he most likely would have done so.

what's it mean that he cannot prove by documentation that he did not give the order to stand done? well, as they say in the law business, it's hard to prove a negative, e.g., it's hard to prove that something never happened.

for obama, for anyone else.

what's it mean for obama that positive documentary proof exists that he did give the order to troops, or cia teams, or navy seals in and about libya to prevent them from coming to the aid of ambassador stevens? i should think that if this is the case, it would indeed be worrisome to obama.

first, let us consider the panetta defense, of not sending troops into harms way without intel. well, most of the military types who've written on the subject say that panetta is full of poop, to put it nicely. such silliness simply won't serve obama's needs.

if obama is faced with documentary evidence that he did give such an order, and newt gingrich says that several senators have such proof in hand, then i think it means that obama looses the presidency. if such written confirmation comes out before the election, it is likely to cause him the election. if it comes out after he has won election, then i think it starts impeachment proceedings, and obama looses all credibility with the public and the military regardless of the outcome.

this isn't a matter of dipping the cigar into the secretarial pool. this is a matter of loosing an ambassador by dereliction, incompetence, indecision and cowardice. if he ordered the military to stand down, or if any subordinate in his administration gave such an order without clearing it with the boss. this is the dereliction part.

if he gave the order? well, that raises the issues of incompetence, and/or motive. incompetence is no good defense for him. and, if it is shown that his motive was to collaborate with islamic or leftist entities to attack our rights under the first amendment, to secure some sort of "prior restraint law" on free speech under our legal system when islam is concerned, then i think he faces the very real possibility of a lynching.

what if someone does have a copy of such an order, and can provide "provenance?" well, history may very well turn on whether such person is a man of integrity, or a man who will trade it to obama for personal and political gain.

these are the stakes for obama, and it is of no small interest to all whether the game plays out in the next several days as stage managed by gingrich (and colleagues), or whether it takes months to ferret out the truth.

but, i don't think this matter is going away. not for obama. not for us.

john jay @ 10.31.2012

p.s. i am certain of one thing. if gingrich simply fired this across obama's bow thinking to give him a warning of what is coming, in hopes that he will do the honorable thing and resign, then gingrich has another think coming. obama has no honor, and preserving his honor is not part of his calculus. he will simply hang on to power as long as he can.

it's the only time that he can get anyone to look at him, and he has strong needs in that direction. trust me.

p.s.s. what are the stakes for hillary clinton? she has no dog left in this fight. it lies bleeding in the sand, blood oozing from too many gaping wounds to see another sunrise.

she has lied too many times, over too many things, to have any future at stake. she has foreclosed any political future, other than as house lackey. spread butter on her, she is toast.

usually about the time i write some posts that people are reading i get attacked by daily kos, little green footballs, loonwatch and a whole host of leftist blogs for sins real, or imagined, in their eyes. to show you what kind of world it is, i've even been taken to task by dutch and danish blogs.

on the benghazi debacle, and obama/clinton's lying and deceiving about it, and hiding the truth from the american public, i've heard nary of peep. nothing from lgf's lizards. nothing from barth notes. nothing at all from daily kos, nor from loonwatch.

nothing from giants of the earth, or denizen to minion, nothing from in between.

utter and complete silence.

nor have i seen the big hitters on the right suffer their usual attack from the left, when the right is scoring points.

absolutely no rebuttal to the truths revealed, nor any scathing remarks about the accusations hurled toward obama/clinton, (skilled or otherwise.)

(update, 10.31.2012: it occurs to me, that the left has this problem if they want to resort to their usual attack on personalty. and that is, if they were to attack me, for instance, for being the bearer of bad tidings what would they then have to say in defense of obama/clinton. they could repeat the obama narrative, but, that presents some problems, doesn't it. and, halt and lame as i am, a shadow of my former self, i would still score some points. were they to attack someone adept at public debate, they have an even bigger problem. they would simply open themselves to devastating rebuttal.

no, any defense of obama is going to have to come from obama. we are likely to have to wait a little bit for that, under any circumstance. and, if obama is gonna defend himself, it is gonna be a documents game, and that opens up a whole can of worms for him. for, if he goes that route, then his attackers get to pick through the worms, and talk to the parties.

so, for now, it's just gonna be attacks on personality. and, that's a sticks and stones sorta deal. and that does nothing to shore up the obama/clinton narrative, or narratives, as a new one issues everytime the speak on the matter, as they squirm on the frying pan.

i think the ultimate truths will emerge in dialog between the executive and legislative branch, as refereed by the judicial. if obama is "lucky," that is. end update.) (update, 11.01.2012: and, consider this. about all the lefties can do is beat up on me. and, just what good does that do them? on the other hand, say i get some licks in, it hurts obama, no matter what they do to me. the best they get is a draw. and, say i have a good day. i could hurt them and obama. it's just not worth the risk for them, as they derive precious little benefit from it, no matter what. *sigh* end update.)

the left has had nothing to say. that is because obama/clinton have left them with nothing to say, have left them absolutely naked and defenseless to our onslaught, because we have truth to tell, and they have absolutely nothing but tired old lies to respond with. oh, the leftist blogs are not past lying, they do it skillfully. but, obama/clinton are so naked, so exposed in the spotlight, that they left has nowhere to turn.

that, my friends, is the fix that barack obama is in. the most rabid zealots on earth have nothing to say in his defense. can say nothing in his defense.

he is laid bare and open as any other cadaver on the autopsy table, his fate is ignoble. what can you say about a cadaver with no heart?

that this was allowed was insane. we are fighting the al queda all over the world, and they attack us all over the world. and, they are in charge of embassy "security." my goodness, talk about putting the hen house in charge of the foxes.

what nit wit in the department of state approved such an arrangement? well, who do you suppose?

u.s. marines should secure our embassies. end of discussion.

it calls into question just whose agenda is being advanced by obama/clinton, that of the united states, or that of islam. if you ask me, the obama/clinton gang are just too damned cozy with islam and the arab states.

and, if that is not disturbing enough, consider this insanity. just two days after the attack on benghazi, hillary clinton is found sharing the podium at an event observing the muslim holiday of eids with a person affiliated with the same muslim brotherhood/al queda group that carried out the attack at the benghazi embassy compound.

witness this, and comprehend.--

in fact, about one month prior to aujali’s vouching for belhaj, he appeared at the islamic society of north america (isna) convention. isna is a muslim brotherhood front group in america.

aujali represents one individual who is willing to bridge the gap between al-qaeda and the muslim brotherhood. [i would have written "go-between." but, it means the same: jjjay.]

now, september 13 is at the high water mark of obama/clinton's success with the lie about "the film" inciting the ever excitable "arab street" to "spontaneously" attack our embassy, thereby stimulating "spontaneous" coverage and repetition of obama's lies by the media the world over, ... , and maybe hillary clinton felt embolden to try and use the cover of those lies to consort some more with her muslim friends. maybe huma was there with her, i don't know.

but, friends, consider the mendacity, the depravity of this, ... , she celebrates the eid and shares a podium with the same people who are associated with those persons who attacked the embassy, knowing full well for days that it was their people who killed our ambassador. and, that she is celebrating the same religion whose religious impulse drove the attack upon the embassy, and drove the murder of our ambassador.

she celebrates islamic holidays with associates of the murderers of our ambassador? she vows to bring to justice a man she knows, absolutely, to be innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever in this murder, to advance the aims, purposes and goals of the murderers?

just who in the hell is running the ship around here? and, just whose purposes and aims are they advancing?

i am so angry about these circumstances that i could chew and spit nails.

October 30, 2012

often newspapers go into court requesting that various private and public entities divulge information in their possession, asserting the shibboleth of "the public's right to know." or, the rubric of "in the public interest."

the dividing line between sanctity and sanctimonious is apparently a thin one, when a newspaper has information of importance to the public, but chooses not to divulge it. it would appear that to newspapers, some public's have a right to know, and other public's do not. and, the newspapers decide.

not the "public."

such is the case of the los angeles times and its possession of a film of barack "the one and true hussein" attending a dinner in honor of rashik khalidi in the year 2003, when khalidi was departing the university of chicago for a teaching post at columbia university.

i am not concerned here about the legalities of journalistic privilege, somewhat suspect as a legal principle and hardly absolute if actually extent. rather, i am concerned about what the newspapers choose to tell us, which is not damned much if they so choose.

yes, that is their right. but, the analysis only starts there. as i see the matter, the issue rather quickly boils down to these two propositions. yes, they may choose what they divulge. but, if they choose not to divulge what we want to know, and what we need to know to understand what goes on around us in the world, then why do we owe them any duty or obligation to support and protect them when they are in a bind.

and, if they choose to be partisan, (which they have), why do they enjoy any immunity or neutrality in social conflict that may erupt between partisan interests?

fair if fair. if they won't play fair, then they are fair game. it's the way of the world.

the los angeles times has weighed into this debate over access to the film of the party with obama and rashid in attendance, with an article by james rainey, dated september 21, 2012 and entitled, "the truth behind the 'khalidi video' and why it is not for sale." (i don't want to buy it, i want to see it, because i need to see it, to make an informed decision on the merits about whether obama is a muslim/arab sympathizer, and an enemy of israel. simple as that.) http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/21/news/la-pn-khalidi-video-not-for-sale-20120921 .

rainey makes a cogent enough argument about the nature of the privilege asserted, that being the right of the reporter to refuse to divulge his sources. he argues that if the paper hadn't made the concession to the holder of the video not to reveal it, they would not have learned anything about the dinner for khalidi in the first place, and would not have obtained valuable background on obama, some of it less than flattering. according to rainey.

well, fair enough. those are cogent observations. but, it is the conduct of the paper in engaging in telling half truths and not revealing pertinent information, which they again choose not to divulge to suit their partisan posture, which makes the rainey argument less than persuasive in my mind.

what do i mean by that observation? lets go to the factual matters involved, which reveal a pattern of misdirection designed to obscure and hide things from the public, that the public ought to know.--

let's look how rainey describes rashid khalidi at this late date, (and, i will remind you that this article was printed september 21, 2012 just 10 days after the benghazi anniversary attack on american embassy ground in libya, and just when obama's lies were coming to the surface, a time when the public evaluation of his bias was a highly relevant topic, as it is now):

well, that is a pretty "kid gloves" description of a man who was a p.l.o. operative before he became a college professor. it is also avoiding that his scholarship is more than a bit hostile towards the right of the israeli state to exist. and, some people who do not view israel as occupying arab lands would be a bit taken back to read rainey's words, which seem to assume as fact that israel's occupation of its own land is hostile.

mr. rainey is entitled to his political views, no matter how harebrained they may be. but, i don't think that he is entitled to misdirect his readers from understanding the true dimension of rashid khalidi's radicalism, and his terrorist past. slice it any way you want, but when you work for the palestinian liberation organization as a publicist for yassar arafat, and when your wife is his translator, you are a terrorist. it's hard to wash the blood out of your socks, in that situation.

rainey also scoffs at the notion that ayers and dohrn were at the party, noting:

"the conspiracy theory mushrooms, in part, around the presence of one-time weather underground radical william ayers and his wife, bernardine dohrn, around the khalidi farewell proceedings. another news report about the khalidi going-away party said ayers and dohrn had signed a “commemorative book” for the mideast scholar. that story did not make clear whether the lefties were at the party or signed the book at some other time." http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/21/news/la-pn-khalidi-video-not-for-sale-20120921 .

andrew mccarthy thinks that ayers and dohrn were there. and, mccarthy has so written. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/226104/i-l-times-i-suppresses-obamas-khalidi-bash-tape/andrew-c-mccarthy . but, the issue is not whether the mad bombers were there, the issue is not revealing to the public the relationship that obama has had with ayers for years, and which obama has lied about, ... , now, there's a shocker, the notion of hussein obama lying about something and the press just letting him get away with it, ... , and attempted to conceal since before he was president.

now you read the blogs (if you've gotten this far.) you know obama knows ayers, that he sat on the board of a trust performing leftist philanthropy, and that he was the recipient of ayer's largess and political support.

but, i am assuming that the readers of the los angeles times do not. and, i think james rainey also shares that assumption. and, he by god, is not gonna be the one to tell them the truth about obama's association with a convicted terrorist and her husband. nor will he mention that bill ayers dodged a conviction for his bombing escapades by the skin of his teeth.

this lying by omission is a constant theme in the los angeles times articles about this video of obama hobnobbing with terrorists.

mccarthy quotes at length from the article in the los angeles times that divulged the fact that the paper had a video tape in its possession, handed over by it "source:"

"wallsten’s story is worth excerpting at length (italics are mine):

'it was a celebration of palestinian culture — a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics. local arab americans were bidding farewell to rashid khalidi, an internationally known scholar, critic of israel and advocate for palestinian rights, who was leaving town for a job in new york.

a special tribute came from khalidi’s friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state sen. barack obama. speaking to the crowd, obama reminisced about meals prepared by khalidi’s wife, mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.

his many talks with the khalidis, obama said, had been “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . it’s for that reason that i’m hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around mona and rashid’s dinner table,” but around “this entire world.”…

this original soft peddling of khalidi's role as an international foe of israel's right to exist, and apologist for terrorism, is pretty much the equivalent of noting that adolph hitler was a figure from wwii and a prominent dog lover. wallsten's description of rashid khalidi as "... an internationally known scholar ..." rather attempts to minimize and obscure the fact that he is better known as a p.l.o. terrorist and apologist who has entered the american academy.

just as bill ayers and bernie dohrn have done. and, just as they attempt to minimize their murderous past.

these things are important, crucially important, as we seek to understand barack obama's motives for lying about the benghazi debacle. obama has sought to cover up what happened there, and he has lied pathologically about what happened.

now, in digging through the rubble of the embassy disaster, we have discovered evidence of a gun running operation to other al queda and muslim brotherhood backed factions in syria, admittedly at the forefront of the battle to unseat syria's assad.

where does obama stand? is he a muslim brotherhood operative?

his sympathies in this regard were explored many years ago by pamela geller at atlas shrugs. she has been at the forefront of the offensive to unseat obama, and she has discussed these issues years before it became politic to do so.

i am going to give you a link to an early article from her about the 2003 dinner for rashid khalidi, which also discusses obama's links to other prominent arab apologists for the jihad, and enemies of the jewish state.

do you understand, that enemies of israel are our enemies as well, for they harbor the same animosities towards us that they do for israel, as well as regarding us as their enemies.

and, see why papers like the los angeles times do you a disservice, tantamount to deception, by not telling you what these people they describe as "scholars" do in the real world, and what they are about.

the l.a. times describes its motives in the most pious of terms. but, remember, piety can easily become impious when it is used to deceive. the l.a. times hides behind a veil of propriety in describing why it won't give up the obama tapes. but, it is not describing the acts of pious searchers for the truth, rather the impious motives of partisan leftists who want to hide the real barack obama from you.

again, for this, their can be no neutrality extended to the newspapers of this country. they are our partisan enemies, and are to treated accordingly.

in the final analysis, to obama/clinton is was more important to preserve "the film" narrative explaining the incitement of islam to violence against us, than it was to preserve the life of an american ambassador.

so, chris stevens died so that the the phony narrative might live.

reflect for a moment, if you will, why it was more important to preserve the life a fabrication, a fiction, than the life of an american ambassador, ... , our fellow human being, ... , than the dignity of our flag.

what does this mean?

i think there only one conceivable answer.-- it means that considerable time, effort and design went into the fabrication of the meme that islam reacted to the false depiction of allah, in an obscure film that no one had watched, and that no one views now. that is the only reason why this lie had "value" to be preserved, because so much planning had gone into it.

the lie was important to obama/clinton. chris stevens, not so much in comparison.

that this film "provoked" islamic violence was the lynch-pin of the lie, the fulcrum of the lie, the pivot for the flanking attack upon our rights of free speech, our liberty to chose our own religion. it was the pretext upon which the left would ask us to give up our freedom and liberty, so that we could live in accord with our friends in islam.

you know, the ones who attack and kill us. the ones who suppress and harass & harry our religion and culture from their midst, yet insist upon living with & among us on a superior footing. the ones who preach and advance our conquest.

those friends.

in short, to preserve this attack on our values and heritage was more important than chris stevens. and, this friends, is why he died, and why we remain in peril so long as soros/obama/& clinton are among us.

October 29, 2012

the al queda attack started not under the cover of darkness, not from the stealth provided by dark alleys, not from clever operatives massing in silence to attack the american embassy by surprise.

this attack was launched under the cover of pretext, a cover of pretext provided by barack obama and hillary clinton. al queda took advantage of that pretext, hid under its cover, and murdered our ambassador as obama and clinton stood incredulously to the side, trapped in there their own fabrication & deceit.

i use "fabrication" because i will use "lies" later, to describe how obama and clinton tried to explain their involvement and their ineptitude away. i use "fabrication and deceit" because this american disaster started well before the attack on benghazi was launched, well before september 11, 2012.

we know quite a bit now about the lies, after the attack. the blogs and the washington times have documented and substantiated the lies, which began only minutes after the attack. we know now, that obama and his henchmen knew that it was al queda within minutes of the attack beginning. we know now, that alerts went out from the embassy that they were under attack, and that these alerts went to the white house, to the state department, to the c.i.a., and to the various military districts having "jurisdiction" over libya. we know now that general carter ham has been sacked for trying to come to the aid of the beleaguered embassy staff, and that he was removed from command for his efforts.

we also know something else in our guts, which no one dare speak, because of the implications.

use your head for a while, and think. the narrative is that ambassador stevens, an aide, and two navy seals were supposed to have held off a determined mob of al queda operatives, for a period of from 7 to 9 hours, and that these al queda forces had automatic weapons, and mortars, and i have heard some mention of rockets.

we know now that these men could have been rescued. no one will say it, but if they could have held off a group attacking them for that long, then there is just no way that the mob could have resisted the onslaught of direct attack by u.s. military while they were massed like that.

period. end of discussion. these men were abandoned to die, by obama, clinton and leon panetta. and, the joint chiefs of staff. obama did it by design, as did clinton. the rest of them because they lacked sufficient courage to do what was right.

let's start with the immediate facts.--

stevens was in libya engaged in a "by back" of guns and weapons given to the al queda types, and opposition forces to ghaddafi. it is more than just an assertion that these guns, weapons to include shoulder held ground to air missiles, were going to turkey, where they were being parsed out to syrian forces opposed to assad.

we know this from many sources, not the least of whom were the russians, who were not happy to see the u.s. and nato supplying weapons to bring down their client state, and to evict their puppet ruler. russia simply does not want to concede syria to the control and influence of iran. think hezbollah in lebanon, and hamas in the west bank and gaza.

it is simply beyond contravention that this is so. a friend has the goods on this, and will publish soon on it. it is his story, and he will tell it brilliantly.

hillary clinton went to libya, even before ghaddafi was cold in the ground, and announced a round up of the guns, and announced more aid for libya. translation, she went there to spread the word that guns would be bought back.

now, if you are an al queda guy, looking for some coin, what is the only thing on earth that is better than selling the united states a weapon? why, it would be to sell the united states that weapon a second time. how do you sell a weapon twice? why you sell it, you steal it, and you sell it again. that's how.

o.k. so much for that, right now. we'll get back to that. the stage for the benghazi attack has been set. but, the play does not start there.

three seemingly unrelated things stand out in my mind.

1.)the apology from the cairo, egypt embassy of the united states of america. it was somewhat curious, because it was issued a day before the disturbance at the u.s. embassy in cairo.

2.)"normative standards of international" law to be applied by american jurists, and when in conflict with established u.s. constitutional principles, to supersede them.

3.)the seeming speed that obama and minions came up with an obscure 14-minute film that absolutely no one has even seen, before or since benghazi, as a pretext to explain the "outrage" of the "arab street" over an outrageous portrayal of mohommed.

this latter thing has always puzzled me.

of all the derogatory things that are said every day in the united states by bloggers like me about mohammed, of all the cartoons that depict him as the crazy pederast that he was, and thief to boot, ... , of all of this, why this film.

how was it seized upon in near unanimity between government bureaus and news media to explain the embassy riot and attack? well, as i look at the whole matter, the chances of him being identified so quickly in order to explain all of this, in terms favorable to the a-rabs after the cairo embassy affair, are just about slim and none.

the only plausible explanation about all of this is that the film was picked as the fall guy, the foil, the explanation for all of this well in advance of any of the public events involved.

well, now, that seems reasonable at first blush. but, when you think about it, it is a bit troubling. why would they pick something out to explain something, if the something hadn't happened yet? and, the only explanation for that, is that obama and hillary knew that the cairo riot was going to happen.

and, that they were prepared in advance to apologize for it. hence, the missive from the cairo embassy, a mistimed stroke if ever there was one, more reminiscent of a marx brothers movie than the machinations of statesman, exercising state craft at its highest levels.

and, that they were prepared in advance to make the film and the film maker the whipping boy for the violence in the "arab street," at cairo.

and, that hillary was prepared in advance to launch her attack upon the freedom of speech and expression enshrined in our written constitution, and enshrined in our heritage. hillary did not misspeak herself at the memorial service on september 14, 2012, ... , she simply spoke rather half hearted-ly from a script that had become badly outdated between 09.10 and 09.11.2012. she had fully intended to launch the attack on the first amendment after cairo, to use cairo as a pretext to advocate restraint upon our freedom of expression.

some background.

the fact is that freedom of speech as we exercise it is not the legal norm in the world, least of all in europe and england. western europe & england are governed by the euro union declaration of rights and by the united nations declaration of rights. both documents provide for freedom of speech. well, all right, you say. but, both documents also say that all subjects and citizens are to be protected from insults because of their ethnicity and religious belief, and that acts and statements hurtful to them are restrained. the declarations further state that no rights are absolute, and that the rights belong to the community, and not to the individuals comprising it. and, finally, the euro union declaration provides that when rights are in conflict, they are to be resolved in the interests of community harmony.

as decided by the euro union jurists and bureaucrats in charge of such matters. i know about this, because i wrote extensively (and very well, i think) with regard to these issues and the trial of geert wilders.

obama and clinton are fans of these standards. they are in favor of their importation into our domestic law.

both are in favor of limiting speech that is critical of islam.

finally, in this regard, you must remember that before cairo and benghazi there was a continual chorus of protest from islamic political leaders, clerics and arab u.n. diplomats clamoring for restrictions on hate and insult speech directed toward islam. in this litany, this chorus, it was sometimes hard to remember that islam regards as slander and blasphemy those things such as truth, clarity and accuracy about islam mohammed, to the extent they feel it makes islam harder to proselytize.

prominent in this whining was the prime minister of turkey, who day after day called for restrictions on speech harmful to islam.

why is this significant?

well, for one thing, this country is just about the only country on earth, and the last of the great industrial nations, to allow such speech. geert wilders, a dutch parliamentarian, was prosecuted for a film called "fitna," which by any standard, simply told the truth about islam.

so, i think the cairo riot was pre-arranged, and known to obama and clinton & various minions at state, and they were prepared, and scripted to respond in an attempt to sell to the american public the notion that we should give up our freedoms of unrestrained, and unrestrainable, political and religious speech.

in short, that we submit to "international normative" legal standards which almost unanimously prohibit saying anything nasty about islam. ask geert wilders. ask elisabeth sabetitch. ask the canadian levant. ask mark steyn. they all have faced criminal prosecution in the netherlands, in austria, and in canada for saying things that muslims and various authorities have taken exception to.

no, the european & english authorities do not prosecute muslims for saying that the queen should have her head chopped off. beats the hell out of me?

well, obama and hillary were ready after cairo. they were ready to step up, and in conformity with the aims and espoused goals of the muslim brotherhood to launch an attack upon our institutions of free speech.

and, then, i believe that al queda in libya saw the perfect opportunity to strike, and to steal all the weapons amassed at the benghazi warehouses run by stevens and his cia partners in the gun running business. i think al queda saw simple commercial opportunity, plus the opportunity to replenish their firepower, reassert their control over capital assets rightfully belonging to them. (they are descended from a very long line of cutthroats and pirates, after all.)

hillary and obama and the prime minister of turkey, the muslim brotherhood, and islamic clerics the earth over told al queda and the arab world that a 14-minute film had enraged them, and that they in their frenzy had no choice but to rise up and strike the hated infidels in the neck, and steal the guns back, to sell them again to the hated infidel for his hated money, .... , well, maybe they don't hate the money so much.

they had the film to blame.

they had been provided the perfect cover of pretext, as provided by the obama administration.

they attacked quickly and without hesitation. they attacked while obama and hillary and susan rice were in the middle of their own frenzy, while they were gearing up to attack free speech.

and, they caught obama in the middle of his lies.

they caught obama in his lies, and placed him in a situation where he could not think fast enough to extricate himself from the situation.

how could he bring military strikes in on top of what he had told the world were the observant faithful of islam, outraged over a slanderous portrayal by an american resident?

how could he tell the world that military strikes were needed because it was al queda that was attacking us because they did not want to see their weapons go to syria, because they wanted to sell us once again the guns we'd given them to fight ghaddafi?

how could he explain the stupid cairo embassy gaffe of releasing an apology the day before it happened?

you remember the "star trek" episodes where james t. kirk, that brave captain kirk, wriggled from every extremity by kissing the computer? and, the computer stood there, flooded by human emotions, and blew steam out its ears, muttering, "does not compute. does not compute."

well, obama did not compute.

a better man would have stepped forward, and done what was right, and called in the military to protect his people. and, taken the aftermath with humor and grace, even if it meant his head. but obama is not built that way. he is not, put simply, a better man.

and, the only thing that the obama administration could think to do was to continue their lies, and to make their denials the more preposterous with every continuing revelation. they were caught in the inextricable webs of their own construction. trapped by what they had viewed as a clever plan to usurp and forfeit our ancient freedoms.

far too clever by half a turn, and outwitted by a bunch of camel jockeys who wear sheets, and thongs made of tire carcasses. outwitted, and stuck in their construct, with no place to go, and no way out. their $600 shoes of absolutely no avail.

we know who led the assault. quite likely who killed stevens, and how. those responsible walk around benghazi and brag about it.

now, you may think that i have my head stuck squarely up my nethers. well, good for you. you are entitled to your opinions, no matter how superficially derived.

but, i remind you of something.

on september 14, 2012 hillary clinton appeared at a memorial for the fallen, and told some in attendance that those responsible for this would be prosecuted.

no, not the al queda.

but, the poor maker of a 14-minute film that no one ever watched, has never watched, and that she claimed had inflamed the world. she knew it wasn't true. she knew it wasn't true two hours after the attack on the "embassy grounds" had started. yet, we sat through all this for days, and watched as a man was herded back and forth and in and out of federal & state custody, with a jacket over his head to protect his identity.

we watched as his liberty was stomped and mutilated upon the pretext of lies spun by obama and hillary.

and, i've got news for you. we sat and watched as our liberty came perilously close to being destroyed by barack hussein obama and hillary rodham clinton. for those of you who retain your liberty this night, understand that it is because of a little cadre of conservative bloggers who have risen up and protected you, and because of some reporters at fox news and the washington times, who were determined to keep you out of chains. if not for the people i have identified, obama and hillary would have prevailed in this lie, quite a few thanks owed to a credulous press which is just now waking to the reality of the lies told to us by "our government."

if not for them, who would have destroyed the mantle of chains and binders by which obama and clinton meant to enslave you?

united states ambassador stevens died at benghazi, a casualty of barack hussein obama's mendacious calculation. this on september 11, 2012.

on september 14, 2012 in the middle of the administration's initial attempts to explain benghazi away by blaming in on a film which purportedly agitated the "arab street" into a spontaneous demonstration that led to the attack on the embassy, hillary rodham clinton made an even more calculating and insidious attack upon the fundamental right and liberty of americans to free speech and intellectual expression.

"hillary clinton’s freakishly bizarre statement [this is a live link to another washington times article, setting forth the circumstances of clinton's remarks a bit more fully: jjay.] on september 14 is also worth noting. at a memorial service to the fallen she told charles woods, father of slain former navy seal tyrone woods, that “we will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted." in that situation one would expect her to vow to take down the terrorists who killed tyrone, not the supposed instigator of the spontaneous mob action that never happened.

"but since when does the secretary of state feel it is her duty to promise to have an american filmmaker who has committed no crime arrested? for all the bowing and scraping to islam that has gone on in the last four years, blasphemy against that or any other faith is still not illegal in this country. the first amendment still exists. it is strange that mrs. clinton believed that the parents of the slain americans would empathize with her outrage at the filmmaker, rather than reserve their anger for the extremists who actually did the killing. but as mr. woods said, he "could tell that she was not telling me the truth." indeed the truth has been the fifth casualty in this entire tragic affair."

this is inspired writing. consider again, this sentence, "in that situation one would expect her to vow to take down the terrorists who killed tyrone, not the supposed instigator of the spontaneous mob action that never happened." it cannot be said better. clinton knew the meme of the film was a lie, knew that the pretext that a "spontaneous mob" carrying out the attack was a lie, and knew that withholding the fact that benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, was an act of omission & misdirection tantamount to a lie.

yet, she chose that forum to mouth an attack upon our first amendment rights, the very foundation of our right and liberty. and, in a very real sense, she attacked our religious heritage, by defending islam and hiding the agenda of the jihad.

why would she do this?

now, keep several things in mind when you read this. we now know for fact that obama and hillary knew, or should have known, that the attack upon the american embassy in benghazi was not the work of muslims worked into a frenzied outrage over some obscure 14-minute film, but, rather, was the work of al queda operatives. we know with almost equal certainty that obama, hillary, leon panetta and the pentagon kept a fighting general out of the battle, and prevented him from bringing in troops that might have saved stevens, or, might have retrieved his body short of suffering all the indignity heaped upon it by muslims, after their usual fashion.

yet, hillary lied once again, and blamed this outrage upon an american film making. she is essence alleged that the film and film maker had purposefully incited the "arab street" to yet another act of murder.

she made our liberty the fall guy for her lies, for the lies of obama. she promised to walk all over our heritage of rights and liberties to perpetuate another lie to the american people. she tried to make a person who she knew had nothing to do with anything about benghazi the dupe, and promised to prosecute him, knowing that it was false and illegal prosecution.

she squatted, and she pissed on the constitution.

to cover her lies. to cover obama's lies.

let's pause a bit here, and reflect upon historical fact as we know it.--

did the american right and liberty of free expression incite islamic terror to shoot leon klinghoffer in the forehead as he sat helpless in a wheelchair on the deck of the achille lauro, and then to be pushed off the deck of the liner and into the mediterranean sea?

did the fundamental liberties of americans incite black september to take israeli athletes hostage at themunich olympics, and to kill those who resisted apprehension?

did the majesty of those american ideals, the american reality of free speech, the free interchange of intellect and ideas, the triumphs of free market enterprise as exemplified and made concrete in the magnificent edifice of the trade center complex, cause the al queda attack upon the trade center in new york harbor on september 11, 2001?

perhaps the answer to all these questions, in a sense, is yes, because islam in general and the jihad in particular hate us for our freedoms, our ideals, and the expression of ideas and ideals, and the material success which is the express derivation of those ideals, which are inimically opposed to islamic facism. as they are to all forms of collective & hierarchical fascism.

but, never before has any american politician or official stated that any american or person on american soil would be prosecuted for the expression of thought. this statement by hillary clinton, already exposed as a cynical liar, is as open and notorious an attack upon american liberty as ever expressed by any soviet commissar, or nazi agitator, or chinese red gaurd fanatic in charge of ethnic & class based purges.

it is not, however, a whole lot different than any number of statements made by prominent arab/islamic politicians in the days leading up to the demonstration against america at the american embassy in cairo, egypt on september 10, 2012. it is, not, for instance, a whole lot different than what the turkish prime minister said.

and, it was not a whole lot different than the move afoot in the united nations, sponsored principally by the o.i.c. and the muslim brotherhood, to prevent the "libel" and "slander" of islam, (by any statement, even if true, that reflected poorly upon islam), and to push for legislation both in individual nations and by u.n. treaty for prior restraint and prosecution of such statements.

how do all these things come together? well, as usual, i have some thoughts on the matter.

tip of the hat, and much respect to carolyn, who never sleeps, and never shirks.

well, if this nation goes under because obama wins the election, i don't think that we can blame it on the washington times. this post, oct. 28, 2012 at 12:32 a.m. written by james s. robbins, makes a very forceful case that general carter ham was summarily relieved of his command, africom, for indicating that he was sending troops into benghazi to relieve the beleaguered diplomatic mission there.

understand. an area commander indicates that he is going into benghazi to get the ambassador. he is summarily relieved of his command by the pentagon, and detained by his second in command, who assumes command, and stands the troops down. do you understand?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/robbins-report/2012/oct/28/general-losing-his-job-over-benghazi/ . the administration and the pentagon deny this. the bare facts of the matter suggest that robbins has hit the nail on the head. the irreducible facts seem to be these.-- africom got the distress signals from benghazi. (the same one the dipshit in our house received.) he put his troops into a posture to go fight in benghazi, and to get ambassador stevens. he was ordered to stand down. he indicated he was going in. in less than mere minutes, he was relieved of his command by his second in command, who would have been ordered to do so. (too bad the second in command did not have the backbone of his commander.) the troops stood down. general hams retirement has been announced. (no doubt, he'll not get his gold watch.)

you think about it. a highly regarded general is relieved of command even while the benghazi assault raged on the "embassy" compound. you figure it out.

as for myself, the analysis presented very ably by james robbins is absolutely compelling. the circumstances and context of general ham being relieved of command, after he had ordered his troops in, suggests of no other rationale for what occurred. if we believe the line of bullshit handed out by the white house and the pentagon, then we are to believe that a general is relieved of command, resigns his commission as a general officer and retires, and it had nothing to do with his decision, his desire, to do the honorable thing and send troops to benghazi.

why, fellows who achieve the rank of general and who are given area commands, almost always retire and step down from command before they are scheduled to, and almost always do so after american embassies in their area command are over run, destroyed and attacked by al queda, and almost always after the director of the c.i.a. indicates that the administration and the pentagon were confused as what to do, and so simply allow an ambassador to be murdered, rape, humiliated and his body drug through the streets.

oh, yes, these fellows, these fighting men, almost always retire after they are told not to fight.

gimmee a fucking break.

john jay @ 10.29.2012

p.s. the washington times post does not say so, but, my guess is that the second in command relieved his commanding officer (under direct orders from the pentagon) accompanied by a whole mess of big burly guys, who were wondering why they were ordered from a righteous fight.

i can tell you, general carter ham was not a happy camper under those circumstances.